abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

Esta página no está disponible en Español y está siendo mostrada en English

Demanda

Codelco lawsuit (re Talabre tailings dam expansion, Chile)

Estatus: CLOSED

Fecha de presentación de la demanda judicial
11 Mar 2016
No aplicable
NGO, Defensor de los Derechos Humanos, Comunidad, Pueblos indígenas, Grupo de inquietudes medioambientales, Individual
Lugar de presentación: Chile
Lugar del incidente: Chile
Tipo de litigio: Nacional

Empresas

Codelco Chile Minería

Fuentes

In March 2016, a group of individuals and of environmental, feminist and Indigenous organisations, affiliated with the Loa River Water Defense Commission, filed an application for protection (recurso de protección) with the Court of Appeals of Antofagasta against the state-owned enterprise CODELCO (Proceedings 597-2016). The claim sought to halt the expansion of the Talabre tailings dam at Codelco's Radomiro Tomic copper mine, in the Antofagasta region of northern Chile, which had been authorised by the Committee of Environmental Assessment of the region in January 2016. They argued that the expansion, located 3 kilometres from Calama and near the rural towns of Chiu-Chiu and Lasana, posed significant health risks and environmental damage due to potential water contamination from toxic waste and heavy metals. In April 2016, the court dismissed the application because it considered there was no evidence of illegal conduct that would justify granting the requested protection. The case is closed.